grassroots

The G8 met in Japan this past week and there was a recommitment to continue supporting foreign aid to developing countries.  When I was in Ethiopia in 2006 the Economist ran an article that was flitting around the hotel I was staying in about how foreign aid is creating an African society of un-empowered, unmotivated, and sense of entitlement from foreigners to ensure that the lives of Africans improved.

At the time I thought it made sense.  As someone who has traveled to many developing countries, I saw first-hand how North American aid was being used.  From the fancy UN land rovers to the extravagant parties held by dignitaries to honour each other for jobs well done in attacking polio, malaria and AIDS.  Money that you, the average donor, who worked hard to earn and then to invest back in community was being squandered by many of the largest NGO's.  The most shocking part of it was that I was part of the problem.  I was feeding into a system that had very lax accountabilities.

Fast-forward to 2008 for my second trip to Ethiopia (third trip to Africa).  It is amazing the difference in how, not only I view foreign investment, but how organizations are using those funds.  While there was definitely evidence of the African expectation that as a Canadian, I will automatically give money or sponsor immigration (from the airport employee in the Nairobi, Kenya airport terminal who guided me through a maze of mis-connections and then asked me to help get him to Canada or at least pay for the service that was his job, to the student whom I met in Addis who has repeatedly emailed me asking for ways to move to Canada or the least I could do would be to pay for his education), the grassroots movement is growing quickly.

The rapid growth of grassroots development in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya and South Africa is cause for celebration (these are the countries that I have traveled to - if you check out ChristmasFuture you will find other grassroots initiatives from other parts of the world).  The need for foreign investment is ever present, however, instead of the North Americans coming in and saying this is how you should fix your problem, it is the villages and the communities that are saying this is what we need to fix our problems, will you help us achieve our goals and objectives. 

The disconnect that I see is not between NGO's and implementing organizations (though there are some other major issues facing funding organizations and implementing partnerships).  Rather, I see this disconnect being between what the G8 governments are funding and how they are making those investments.  From Bush's ABC protocol on AIDS funding (which has since been modified slightly), to the UN's project management to CIDA's crazy maze of application funding and accountabilities it is no wonder that our tax dollars that are being invested in foreign aid do not seem to be having an impact. 

I recently hosted a lunch with Dr. Richard Northcott, founder of Canadian Humanitarian and few people who have invested significantly in overseas projects.  One of the things that I gained from this meeting was how poorly our government bodies and large-scale NGO's take into consideration the cultural mores of the country in which they are investing.  Let's take AIDS eradication - there are some tribes in Africa where multiple partners is a sign of wealth and power.  In one tribe in Ethiopia, for example, when a man gets married it is expected that his previous lovers will bring gifts for the new couple.  So it benefits him and his wife for him to have had several partners before marriage to increase his material wealth upon marriage.  How then can one expect abstenance to be part of AIDS education when that will directly impact the wealth of the family down the line? It is all well and good that our governments are investing in foreign aid.  The thing is that it has to be invested wisely and as Stephanie Nolen has pointed out on several occaisions, because the governments in developed countries are not investing wisely they are creating cycles of entitlement and rather than solving the various problems afflicting developing countries.

Of course this does not stop at government bodies and carries through to the NGO's that are doing projects with implementing partners in the developing world... But that is for another blog post.

Wow! That really sums up how I am feeling these days.  In a recent article posted by the Financial Times people can now feel good about feeding their addictions.  Okay, maybe that is a little harsh… But really, if you think about it – our TV watching habits took a philanthropic spin when American Idol launched their Africa projects a couple of years ago; and how can we ignore Oprah’s Big Give?!  Now our online gambling addictions can have a positive social impact.In Canada a large number of charities receive government funding from dollars generated at casinos.  Gambling is not a new source of revenue; what is new, is the betting on prediction markets. 
Non-Profits Place Bets on Prediction Markets, highlights an organization that allows individuals to bet on the outcomes of real-life scenarios.  Like, who will win the Democratic Nomination.  The website - Bet2Give, is tapping into the social entrepreneurship of the non-profit sector and providing donors with the opportunity to play with their money.  The winner of the bet gets to choose which charity the dollars will be invested. 

The focus of this blog is on strategic philanthropy.  I was drawn to what Bet2Give is doing because of the focused nature of the philanthropic investment once the winner has been declared.  So why aren’t more people accessing this site?  Since September only 400 people have “played” this game and of that only $1000 was generated.  What is it about this type of giving that is not attracting mass appeal of the online gambling sector? Is it because this site was created by a for-profit company that is using philanthropy to attract web-traffic?  How is this different from when a company like Target or Ford use the Oprah show (okay pay for the rights to be on Oprah) to generate traffic to their sites and stores and showrooms?  Is this not just another form of sponsorship (in a loose way)?

I pose this (among many other) question - Perhaps there is a way for donors to direct societal change through these prediction markets.  Instead of posing a question that is currently reflected in the news and can be answered in a short time (within two years), what if donors were to start asking questions of society that would lead to systemic change? 

There is a group that is sort of addressing this, and is also highlighted in the article – The Long Now Foundation.  I think we need more of these long-term think tanks that are driven from a grassroots level and that encourage the everyday donor, small business owner and general philanthropist to engage in the process of societal change.

Oprah’s Big Give is a reflection of a grassroots movement whose catalyst (or tipping point) was Oprah.  There is obviously something in the North American psyche that is not being fulfilled with today’s consumerism.  If millions of people can not only be convinced to turn on and tune in for an hour a week to watch other people give Target, Ford and Oprah’s money away, and then go and do something in their community; what is missing in our society? 

Here’s my thing with The Big Give – besides it was shameless promotion for Ford, Target and the various other companies that paid to be involved, there was no discussion on sustainability.  I understand the pay-it-forward concept – and by helping one family in need perhaps others will do the same (hence the groundswell of Random Acts of Kindness that appeared around the US and Canada).  I ask this – when you help a group of women who are living with AIDS have a nice day so that they can forget about their plight are you really impacting them or are you putting a band-aid on a situation?  What if that same contestant had actually invested those funds in supporting the AIDS hospice with funding that they could then provide ongoing quality of life programs for their clients?  Would that not have generated more “pay-it-forwardness” and ultimately helped more people?

I didn’t watch every episode of The Big Give, mostly because it irritated me over the lost opportunities on educating Oprah’s viewership on effective philanthropy and not just making people feel good by throwing a party.  This was culminated when Ford gave the car to the gentleman who was attending college to make his life better for him and his family.  Oprah’s comment was – he has to take the bus to school and work.  Well gee – I am sorry to hear that, and now we have one more gas-guzzling SUV on the road.  Would it not have been better for Ford to say, we will cover your tuition and educational expenses AND when you are done we will consider hiring you in a position with our company, or using our network of people find you a job in the field that you are studying?  Then this guy could not only be a positive role model for his 4 children, but would be a contributing member of society and break the cycle of poverty and addictions that he has been living and afford to buy his own vehicle.   

Oprah said in one of her shows that she is trying to bring to light how much we consume and how it is possible to live on less (ironic coming from her, no?).  Then she goes and gives $1Million to the best philanthropist (last I checked - philanthropy was an act benefiting society that went unrewarded) and strengthens our resolve to buy more by giving away the one item that is epitomizes American consumerism – the automobile! 

This blog post was not meant to be a diatribe against Oprah.  She is an amazing woman, I just think she had so many opportunities with this game and she missed out.  The one thing she was successful with, was getting others to look around them and see what needs to be done in their communities.  Perhaps that will translate into more long-term forward thinking action and then the Bet2Give people can join forces with Oprah’s people and really generate social capital.
Thanks for reading.  I look forward to your comments.